
Hawaii's Fake Statehood

Urban Farming Is the Future
image above: Urban farmer Will Allen won a Genius Award from the McArthur Foundation
From http://solar1.org/2008/09/26/urban-farmer-wins-genius-award
By David Tracey on 17 August 2009 in The Tyee
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/08/18/UrbanFarmingFuture
The first odd thing about Cam Macdonald's Mt. Pleasant lawn is that it isn't a lawn. It's a farm.
Standing out amid the typical suburban sea of grass patches are his potatoes, carrots, beats, peas, shallots, squash, parsnips and more -- enough to have given food to 70 people by the beginning of July.
The second odd thing is that it isn't even Cam's yard. It belongs to Heidi Gigler and Jug Sidhu, a non-gardening couple who heard about Cam's soul search for right livelihood last year and agreed to let him pursue it by turning their turf into food.
Does this small but significant act of land karma represent the beginning of a profound challenge to our very notions of private property and home ownership? Or is it just a simple way for a few more people to eat a little more food from where they live -- a driving force behind the soaring popularity of urban agriculture?
In any case, it's working. Cam is on his way to what could become a career, and the couple are thrilled with the look and taste of their front yard. "The problem," said Heidi, "is it's hard to keep up with the food."
They give some of the excess away to neighbours, including people they hardly knew before the creation of the front yard farm. "Now we're having constant conversations... It's really created a community."
Cam sees it as a first step. With his three partners, he hopes to hone his skills into a profitable business next year. Not bad for a guy who just got started in urban farming with little experience beyond "a year of reading a lot, talking to a lot of people who know what they're doing and just doing it."
It's only fair to mention that he did know a few things about indoor plants, having grown them during a self-apprenticeship in horticulture for which he now credits the Vancouver Police Department because it didn't arrest him. Of course growing food crops outdoors is different, but he swears it's not at all difficult. His advice: "Anyone can do it."
Many are, including some driven by a scary thought: we're running out of food.
Remember the global food crisis?
Until last fall when bankers took over the headlines, 2008 was known as "The Year of the Global Food Crisis."
Oddly, the crisis came at a time of world record grain harvests. Yet stockpiles went down and prices way up, to the breaking point.
Protesters marched in the streets of more than 20 countries. In the Philippines soldiers had to guard rice reserves. In Egypt the army was mobilized to bake bread.
Among the blamed was Big Ag, the corporations dominating industrial agriculture. Food giant Cargill saw its profits soar 86% during the worst of the crisis, while pesticide and seed seller Monsanto doubled its earnings, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Also pegged as part of the problem were commodity speculators, farmers planting bio-fuel rather than food crops, and swelling middle classes in China and India eating meat (animals need a lot of plants). Another probable cause was not always mentioned but may be the most ominous: peak oil.
Fossil fuels are used for the fertilizers and pesticides that power industrial agriculture. They're also burned to transport all those 2,400-mile salads. Our world food system was built on cheap oil, so if that era is about to end, it follows, so too is the way we eat, and live.
But hang on. It could get worse. And sooner than you think.
The mother of all monkey wrenches may be global climate change. Even in the near term, bigger storms and longer droughts will mean harder farming and fewer crops.
So with one crisis feeding another, which catastrophe will it be? Dwindling food stocks? Soaring energy costs? Global climate weirdness?
You could pick any one of them and worry yourself useless. Or you could do something about all three by growing a way out of the problem.
Can cities save agriculture?
It's called urban agriculture, and it's relatively new, at least on the scale now being tried. But it may be just what humanity needs if it's going to survive.
Too bold?
Let's break it down. Start with a simple question:
Can cities save agriculture?
Of course this would normally be asked the other way around. Rural farmers have fed urban residents since "agri" met "culture" 10,000 years ago.
It worked, and it didn't. Cities thrived, but not indefinitely. No society has ever been able to outlive its resources.
The limits, we realize now, as an urban species, with more than half our population in cities and a million more arriving every week, are planetary. Viewed through that lens, we can see a system being strained perhaps to the point of failure.
The worst effects are evident already in places like Botswana and Haiti. But not just there. In Canada more than 700,000 now visit food banks every month, including a rising number of families and those with jobs -- people confronting the new food realities for the first time.
If the old urban model based on exploiting surrounding resources won't work, the critical question of our time will be whether we can design livable cities without ruining the earth in the process. Or as educators in Queensland recently defined that clunky word "sustainability" for schoolchildren: we need to figure out how to provide "enough for everyone forever."
Ecology, energy, jobs, housing -- these and more will all figure in the ways we build a more sensible world, but the city of the future will largely be shaped by its food, something we're not used to considering in the big picture.
Food security, food systems, food sovereignty, food policy. If these terms aren't familiar yet, they may well be soon. Others will emerge as the movement grows. The model city of the 21st century may turn out to be a living, green, healthy place in harmony with its own "foodshed," unless that sounds too much like a pantry in the back yard.
BC could be a leading example
We know a population of billions will still need large rural farms. And we hope we can always share the benefits of fair trading on a small planet, because no amount of eco-guilt will ever convince some (me) that drinking tea in Canada is a terrible thing.
But we are heading into an era where many more people will have to reconnect significantly with their food in all its stages: growing, distributing, preparing, eating, recycling. Starting with growing.
Urban agriculture is spreading in B.C. and around the world. Rarely mentioned a generation ago, it's the buzz term of our day.
It already offers an estimated 800 million farmers a chance to shape their own urban environment, cut grocery budgets, eat fresh produce, reduce carbon emissions, beautify developed areas, re-engage with rural growers and, fingers crossed, maybe even save the planet.
Modern urban agriculture is still in the experimental stages. In some places it's hip, in others a way to survive. Just how it turns out, and what the term means 25 years from now, is still to be determined, perhaps with our help.
British Columbians can lead the world in offering an enlightened model of city living centred on healthy food for all.
Why us?
Our cities are still new, on the historical scale, so we're not bound by medieval property lines or centuries-old thinking.
We like to think of ourselves as innovative in urban design, and willing to try new ideas if they'll lead to a healthier environment.
We have good growing conditions: rich soil, clean water and weather mild enough, near the coast anyway, to support year-round harvests of fresh greens.
We've escaped the worst of the urban sprawl riddling other regions in North America, thanks to the farmland protection act known as the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).
We'll back our growers where it counts, at the cash register, according to an Ipsos Reid poll that found eight out of 10 people willing to pay a premium for food that's fresh, local and grown with fewer chemicals and pesticides.
Finally, we're mad to grow it ourselves, to judge by the booming sales of vegetable seeds and long waiting lists for community garden plots.
Get dirty
Explanations for why so many more people are eager to grow their own food vary, but at least some of the interest stems from the urban angst brought on by all the predictions of a bleak environmental future.
So to put the answer to our simple question in simple terms: cities must save agriculture because nothing else can, and vice versa.
The appeal of doing something, with your hands in the soil, offers anyone a chance to be in on the solution. You could wallow in the end of the world as we know it, or you could take an active role as an engaged citizen while you bite into a sun-warmed tomato fresh off the vine. Which side are you on?
This series explores the boom in urban agriculture in British Columbia by looking at how we got here, how we rate comparatively and, most importantly, what we should be doing now to create a better food future.
Industrial Apocalypse
image above: George Monbiot (l) and Paul Kingsnorth (r)
From http://www.artcornwall.org/feature%20daro%20montag3.htm
and http://www.portobellobooks.com/Authors/Paul-Kingsnorth?view=zoomPortrait
By Monbiot & Kingsnorth on 17 August 2009 in The Guardian -
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-change)
From Paul Kingsnorth to George Monbiot

Dear George On the desk in front of me is a set of graphs. The horizontal axis of each represents the years 1750 to 2000. The graphs show, variously, population levels, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, exploitation of fisheries, destruction of tropical forests, paper consumption, number of motor vehicles, water use, the rate of species extinction and the totality of the human economy's gross domestic product.
What grips me about these graphs (and graphs don't usually grip me) is that though they all show very different things, they have an almost identical shape. A line begins on the left of the page, rising gradually as it moves to the right. Then, in the last inch or so – around 1950 – it veers steeply upwards, like a pilot banking after a cliff has suddenly appeared from what he thought was an empty bank of cloud.
The root cause of all these trends is the same: a rapacious human economy bringing the world swiftly to the brink of chaos. We know this; some of us even attempt to stop it happening. Yet all of these trends continue to get rapidly worse, and there is no sign of that changing soon. What these graphs make clear better than anything else is the cold reality: there is a serious crash on the way.
Yet very few of us are prepared to look honestly at the message this reality is screaming at us: that the civilization we are a part of is hitting the buffers at full speed, and it is too late to stop it. Instead, most of us – and I include in this generalization much of the mainstream environmental movement – are still wedded to a vision of the future as an upgraded version of the present. We still believe in "progress", as lazily defined by western liberalism. We still believe that we will be able to continue living more or less the same comfortable lives (albeit with more windfarms and better lightbulbs) if we can only embrace "sustainable development" rapidly enough; and that we can then extend it to the extra 3 billion people who will shortly join us on this already gasping planet.
I think this is simply denial. The writing is on the wall for industrial society, and no amount of ethical shopping or determined protesting is going to change that now. Take a civilization built on the myth of human exceptionalism and a deeply embedded cultural attitude to "nature"; add a blind belief in technological and material progress; then fuel the whole thing with a power source that is discovered to be disastrously destructive only after we have used it to inflate our numbers and appetites beyond the point of no return. What do you get? We are starting to find out.
We need to get real. Climate change is teetering on the point of no return while our leaders bang the drum for more growth. The economic system we rely upon cannot be tamed without collapsing, for it relies upon that growth to function. And who wants it tamed anyway? Most people in the rich world won't be giving up their cars or holidays without a fight.
Some people – perhaps you – believe that these things should not be said, even if true, because saying them will deprive people of "hope", and without hope there will be no chance of "saving the planet". But false hope is worse than no hope at all. As for saving the planet – what we are really trying to save, as we scrabble around planting turbines on mountains and shouting at ministers, is not the planet but our attachment to the western material culture, which we cannot imagine living without.
The challenge is not how to shore up a crumbling empire with wave machines and global summits, but to start thinking about how we are going to live through its fall, and what we can learn from its collapse.
All the best, Paul
. . .
From George Monbiot to Paul Kingsnorth

Dear Paul Like you, I have become ever gloomier about our chances of avoiding the crash you predict. For the past few years I have been almost professionally optimistic, exhorting people to keep fighting, knowing that to say there is no hope is to make it so. I still have some faith in our ability to make rational decisions based on evidence. But it is waning.
If it has taken governments this long even to start discussing reform of the common fisheries policy – if they refuse even to make contingency plans for peak oil – what hope is there of working towards a steady-state economy, let alone the voluntary economic contraction ultimately required to avoid either the climate crash or the depletion of crucial resources?
The interesting question, and the one that probably divides us, is this: to what extent should we welcome the likely collapse of industrial civilization? Or more precisely: to what extent do we believe that some good may come of it?
I detect in your writings, and in the conversations we have had, an attraction towards – almost a yearning for – this apocalypse, a sense that you see it as a cleansing fire that will rid the world of a diseased society. If this is your view, I do not share it. I'm sure we can agree that the immediate consequences of collapse would be hideous: the breakdown of the systems that keep most of us alive; mass starvation; war. These alone surely give us sufficient reason to fight on, however faint our chances appear. But even if we were somehow able to put this out of our minds, I believe that what is likely to come out on the other side will be worse than our current settlement.
Here are three observations:
- Our species (unlike most of its members) is tough and resilient;
- When civilizations collapse, psychopaths take over;
- We seldom learn from others' mistakes.
From the first observation, this follows: even if you are hardened to the fate of humans, you can surely see that our species will not become extinct without causing the extinction of almost all others. However hard we fall, we will recover sufficiently to land another hammer blow on the biosphere. We will continue to do so until there is so little left that even Homo sapiens can no longer survive. This is the ecological destiny of a species possessed of outstanding intelligence, opposable thumbs and an ability to interpret and exploit almost every possible resource – in the absence of political restraint.
From the second and third observations, this follows: instead of gathering as free collectives of happy householders, survivors of this collapse will be subject to the will of people seeking to monopolize remaining resources. This will is likely to be imposed through violence. Political accountability will be a distant memory. The chances of conserving any resource in these circumstances are approximately zero. The human and ecological consequences of the first global collapse are likely to persist for many generations, perhaps for our species' remaining time on earth. To imagine that good could come of the involuntary failure of industrial civilization is also to succumb to denial. The answer to your question – what will we learn from this collapse? – is nothing.
This is why, despite everything, I fight on. I am not fighting to sustain economic growth. I am fighting to prevent both initial collapse and the repeated catastrophe that follows. However faint the hopes of engineering a soft landing – an ordered and structured downsizing of the global economy – might be, we must keep this possibility alive. Perhaps we are both in denial: I, because I think the fight is still worth having; you, because you think it isn't.
With my best wishes, George
. . .
From Paul Kingsnorth to George Monbiot

Dear George You say that you detect in my writing a yearning for apocalypse. I detect in yours a paralyzing fear.
You have convinced yourself that there are only two possible futures available to humanity. One we might call Liberal Capitalist Democracy 2.0. Clearly your preferred option, this is much like the world we live in now, only with fossil fuels replaced by solar panels; governments and corporations held to account by active citizens; and growth somehow cast aside in favor of a "steady state economy".
The other we might call McCarthy world, from Cormac McCarthy's novel The Road – which is set in an impossibly hideous post-apocalyptic world, where everything is dead but humans, who are reduced to eating children. Not long ago you suggested in a column that such a future could await us if we didn't continue "the fight".
Your letter continues mining this Hobbesian vein. We have to "fight on" because without modern industrial civilization the psychopaths will take over, and there will be "mass starvation and war". Leaving aside the fact that psychopaths seem to be running the show already, and millions are suffering today from starvation and war, I think this is a false choice. We both come from a western, Christian culture with a deep apocalyptic tradition. You seem to find it hard to see beyond it. But I am not "yearning" for some archetypal End of Days, because that's not what we face.
We face what John Michael Greer, in his book of the same name, calls a "long descent": a series of ongoing crises brought about by the factors I talked of in my first letter that will bring an end to the all-consuming culture we have imposed upon the Earth. I'm sure "some good will come" from this, for that culture is a weapon of planetary mass destruction.
Our civilization will not survive in anything like its present form, but we can at least aim for a managed retreat to a saner world. Your alternative – to hold on to nurse for fear of finding something worse – is in any case a century too late. When empires begin to fall, they build their own momentum. But what comes next doesn't have to be McCarthyworld. Fear is a poor guide to the future.
All the best, Paul. . .
From George Monbiot to Paul Kingsnorth

Dear Paul If I have understood you correctly, you are proposing to do nothing to prevent the likely collapse of industrial civilization. You believe that instead of trying to replace fossil fuels with other energy sources, we should let the system slide. You go on to say that we should not fear this outcome.
How many people do you believe the world could support without either fossil fuels or an equivalent investment in alternative energy? How many would survive without modern industrial civilization? Two billion? One billion? Under your vision several billion perish. And you tell me we have nothing to fear.
I find it hard to understand how you could be unaffected by this prospect. I accused you of denial before; this looks more like disavowal. I hear a perverse echo in your writing of the philosophies that most offend you: your macho assertion that we have nothing to fear from collapse mirrors the macho assertion that we have nothing to fear from endless growth. Both positions betray a refusal to engage with physical reality.
Your disavowal is informed by a misunderstanding. You maintain that modern industrial civilization "is a weapon of planetary mass destruction". Anyone apprised of the palaeolithic massacre of the African and Eurasian megafauna, or the extermination of the great beasts of the Americas, or the massive carbon pulse produced by deforestation in the Neolithic must be able to see that the weapon of planetary mass destruction is not the current culture, but humankind.
You would purge the planet of industrial civilization, at the cost of billions of lives, only to discover that you have not invoked "a saner world" but just another phase of destruction.
Strange as it seems, a de-fanged, steady-state version of the current settlement might offer the best prospect humankind has ever had of avoiding collapse. For the first time in our history we are well-informed about the extent and causes of our ecological crises, know what should be done to avert them, and have the global means – if only the political will were present – of preventing them. Faced with your alternative – sit back and watch billions die – Liberal Democracy 2.0 looks like a pretty good option.
With my best wishes, George
. . .
From Paul Kingsnorth to George Monbiot

Dear George Macho, moi? You've been using the word "fight" at a Dick Cheney-like rate. Now my lack of fighting spirit sees me accused of complicity in mass death. This seems a fairly macho accusation.
Perhaps the heart of our disagreement can be found in a single sentence in your last letter: "You are proposing to do nothing to prevent the likely collapse of industrial civilization." This invites a question: what do you think I could do? What do you think you can do?
You've suggested several times that the hideous death of billions is the only alternative to a retooled status quo. Even if I accepted this loaded claim, which seems designed to make me look like a heartless fascist, it would get us nowhere because a retooled status quo is a fantasy and even you are close to admitting it. Rather than "do nothing" in response, I'd suggest we get some perspective on the root cause of this crisis – not human beings but the cultures within which they operate.
Civilizations live and die by their founding myths. Our myths tell us that humanity is separate from something called "nature", which is a "resource" for our use. They tell us there are no limits to human abilities, and that technology, science and our ineffable wisdom can fix everything. Above all, they tell us that we are in control. This craving for control underpins your approach. If we can just persuade the politicians to do A, B and C swiftly enough, then we will be saved. But what climate change shows us is that we are not in control, either of the biosphere or of the machine which is destroying it. Accepting that fact is our biggest challenge.
I think our task is to negotiate the coming descent as best we can, while creating new myths that put humanity in its proper place. Recently I co-founded a new initiative, the Dark Mountain Project, which aims to help do that. It won't save the world, but it might help us think about how to live through a hard century. You'd be welcome to join us.
Very best, Paul
. . .
From George Monbiot to Paul Kingsnorth

Dear Paul Yes, the words I use are fierce, but yours are strangely neutral. I note that you have failed to answer my question about how many people the world could support without modern forms of energy and the systems they sustain, but 2 billion is surely the optimistic extreme. You describe this mass cull as "a long descent" or a "retreat to a saner world". Have you ever considered a job in the Ministry of Defense press office?
I draw the trifling issue of a few billion fatalities to your attention not to make you look like a heartless fascist but because it's a reality with which you refuse to engage. You don't see it because to do so would be to accept the need for action. But of course you aren't doing nothing. You propose to stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, and, er … "get some perspective on the root cause of this crisis". Fine: we could all do with some perspective. But without action – informed, focused and immediate – the crisis will happen. I agree that the chances of success are small. But they are non-existent if we give up before we have started. You mock this impulse as a "craving for control". I see it as an attempt at survival.
What could you do? You know the answer as well as I do. Join up, protest, propose, create. It's messy, endless and uncertain of success. Perhaps you see yourself as above this futility, but it's all we've got and all we've ever had. And sometimes it works.
The curious outcome of this debate is that while I began as the optimist and you the pessimist, our roles have reversed. You appear to believe that though it is impossible to tame the global economy, it is possible to change our founding myths, some of which predate industrial civilisation by several thousand years. You also believe that good can come of a collapse that deprives most of the population of its means of survival. This strikes me as something more than optimism: a millenarian fantasy, perhaps, of Redemption after the Fall. Perhaps it is the perfect foil to my apocalyptic vision.
With my best wishes, George
Randy Hee & Reliability

WHAT:
WHEN:
WHERE:
WHY:
See also:
Hanapepe Journey - Part Two
image above: Sign at east end of "Old Hanapepe Town". All photos by Juan Wilson.
As mentioned many times in these pages, we believe there will be a new economic order when:
1) Flying by jet as an affordable recreational activity won't be viable anymore.
2) Fuel prices rise to a point where traditional US growth is turned to contraction.
3) Business costs will exclude Hawaii from full participation US economics.
Mana Ohana is on the Kaumualii Highway just east of the Hanapepe River. It occupies what once was the biggest tourist trap in town, The Green Garden Restaurant. This sprawling place is alive again with retail space, dining and kitchen facilities. This co-operative health food supplier offers a vital service. They are an outlet for locals who grow and prepare natural foods. Mana Ohana allows suppliers to take credits to purchase store items... no cash required. Bring in what you have in plenty and trade it for what you don't have. The goals of Mana Ohana are to expand and have a "food court" dining/meeting and commercial kitchen facilities available for those that need them.(www.manaohana.net)
- New Economy Element: Providing locally produced food.
The Habitat Restore
The Habitat for Humanities Restore Thrift Store is on the Kaumualii Highway in the pre-Iniki Am-Fac warehouse near the road down to Salt Pond. The Restore a kind of thrift store. It takes in what is offered in charity... but it is not just for retro tape cassettes, furniture and clothing. Like the Salvation Army Thrift Store, they have appliances, electronics, kitchenware, and baby products. Unlike a regular thrift store the Restore has building building materials and hardware. The stuff ranges from new and unused to bent-up and serviceable. A friend of mine built his house with what he found at the Restore just west of the river and mauka of the highway. (www.kauaihabitat.org)
New Economy Element: Providing reuse of industrial materials.
Storybook Theatre
The Storybook Theatre of Hawaii (SBT) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to serving children's media. It produces the "Russell the Rooster TV show. It has a classroom, theater, sound and video studio, workshop, and a children's garden dedicated to peace. To date much of the support for SBT has been through grants but it is scrambling to support itself. SBT has opened a retail store on the first floor that sells a bit of everything including banana bread, SBT CD's and DVD's. SBT offers everything from ukulele lessons to studio time and sound recording. The potential is for Storybook Theatre to become a new kind of community center that focuses on childhood development, education, local culture and media distribution. (www.storybook.org) - New Economy Element: Local culture, education and entertainment.
Talk Story Bookstore
The name is often confused with Storybook Theatre (just across the street) but is a totally separate operation. The people at Talk Story Books sell new and used books online and in their spacious Hanapepe storefront. Besides specialty items they focus on the work of local authors and musicians. On Friday nights they offer free live music on their porch and on the first Monday of every month host a neighborhood potluck. It's a good place to duck into on a rainy afternoon for a game of chess. (www.talkstorybookstore.com)
- New Economy Element: A link to civilization past and present.
The Taro Ko Chip Factory
This factory and retail store was until a few years ago operated by a woman in her late eighties, who when she was younger, used to work the Hanapepe Valley taro fields with her husband. Her son now operates the business. He makes packaged snack chips with local taro and sweet potato. From outside the place looks like an old plantation workers home. It took me a while to realize the Chip Factory was open to street traffic. Outside the front door there are often a few squash available for sale.
- New Economy Element: Processing local agriculture crops into packaged food.
J.J. Ohana's
This store started out selling fine Niihau shell necklaces and imported gewgaws to tourists. They are now doing a bit of everything. They are still offer custom made Niihau shell products, but stopped relying on imported tourist claptrap. They are now open all the time with fresh brewed coffee, inexpensive lunches, and what they find works.
- New Economy Element: Locally made crafts and food for locals.
Besides new paradigms there is the tried and true. Attending to our addictions. That is what convenience stores do. They sell sweets, salt, fat, sugar, alcohol and tobacco. The latter two items are critical. We have two convenience stores. One at each end of town.
Salt Pond Country Store
At the west end of town opposite the Restore, Salt Pond County Store serves anyone in need that is going to the beach or further west. They used to have late hours but have dialed back. As a convenience store it has it all. Besides the Hana Rum and Maui Chips they specialize in some local foods like bento lunches, spam mitsubi, garlic potato salad, and pupus. But the thing that puts them on this list is the fishing and reef gear. If you're going to go catch your lunch in the ocean this store devotes a third of the store to rods, reels, nets, boots and other fishing equipment.
- New Economy Element: Supplies equipment for gathering seafood.
Aloha Spirits
At the east end of town on Hanapepe Road, this store is open from morning to late night every day of the year. Day in and day out Aloha Spirits is the busiest place in Hanapepe. It serves mostly Hawaiians and other varieties of local residents. The place depends on tobacco and liquor sales but they service every other legal vices besides a sweet tooth. Condums, rolling papers, bagged ice, and even some local produce are in the mix.
- New Economy Element: Nothing really new... just eternally ready to scratch that itch when you need it.
see also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Hanapepe Journey - Part One 8/6/09
Collective Ignorance

Elizabeth Warren of the Business Insider chimed in with this assessment: “The banks are still insolvent. That little tweak to mark-to-market accounting a couple of months ago has allowed us all to plunge into deep denial. Now that the banks are allowed to lie about what their toxic assets are worth, they'll never sell them (because if they did they would have to write them down). The smaller banks are undercapitalized and will have to raise another $12-$14 billion.”